THE LACK OF VISION SOLUTION

As if there was no such thing as climate change and the supply of oil and gas was endless, this editorial suggests the solution to rising U.S. energy costs and demand is more drilling. Even Bush administration Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has more vision than that. (See ENERGY SECURITY REQUIRES NEW ENERGY: DOE)

IBD: “No one thing will solve our energy problems. But many, taken together, can. The key is to think both supply and demand.” True enough. But how in the world can an editorial be about increasing energy supply without mentioning a word about New Energy?

The editorial attacks the recent economic stimulus package for not creating jobs but says nothing about Congressional refusal to extend New Energy incentives, leaving 116,000 jobs in jeopardy and obstructing the creation of millions more.

The political tenor of the editorial becomes clear when it challenges Republican presidential candidate John McCain to show his conservative values by reversing his opposition to oil drilling in protected areas like Alaska and offshore. It will be interesting to see if McCain rises to this bait.

There is very little debate about which direction consumption is going. (click to enlarge)

Our Energy Deficit
February 8, 2008 (Investor’s Business Daily via Yahoo News)

WHO
Business-oriented daily journal Investor’s Business Daily (IBD)

WHAT
IBD lays out the by-now familiar energy challenges of high costs, dependence on Arabian Gulf supplies and rising worldwide competition for ever-scarcer fossil fuel resources. It then proposes the only reasonable answer: Get more energy. Yet its lack of any real vision is evident in the fact that it barely mentions New Energy. IBD wants to build nuclear plants and stop putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It calls for outlawing older cars and subsidizing hybrids but makes no mention of plug-in hybrids or electric cars.

After eliminating the energy sources that em,it and the ones that are too dangerous, New Energy is the only logical option to fill the growing energy deficit - but IBD doesn't mention it. (click to enlarge)

WHEN
- 1973: Imports were 1/3 of U.S. oil consumption. Presently, imports are 2/3 of U.S. oil consumption and rising.
- In the next 25 years, there will be a 30% increase in energy demand that would require a $4 trillion investment to meet, according to the National Petroleum Council. (While the 30% figure is pretty widely accepted, the investment amount probably only pertains to fossil fuel development, possibly only oil and gas development.)

WHERE
- $400 billion per year is spent outside the U.S. (the Mideast, Russia, Africa, Latin) America on oil.
- The editorial calls for opening Alaska’s ANWR, federal protected lands and offshore regions to new oil and gas exploration and production.

IBD likes nuclear. Others don't. (click to enlarge)

WHY
- IBD reports there are 40 billion barrels of oil, 250 trillion cubic feet of gas and 1.2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent in the form shale deposits in the restricted regions.
- The proposal to outlaw older, gas guzzling cars and subsidize hybrids makes no mention of the truly mold-shattering impact plug-in hybrid electric cars will soon have on U.S. energy consumption.
- The call for new nuclear plant construction makes skips gaily over potential dangers, waste disposal costs and problems or the enormous cost of construction and insurance.

IBD is a renowned and respected business publication, perhaps not because of its vision. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- IBD, on Congress’ resistance to allowing drilling in the restricted areas: “This is madness, writ large.”
- Roy Innis, noted civil rights leader/chemist: "Onshore and offshore public lands could hold enough oil to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 25 million homes for 60 years -- and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years." (NewEnergyNews: odd choice for IBD to quote. What is the back story?)